Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1731	control, N = 861	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
age	171	50.87 ± 12.58 (25 - 75)	51.09 ± 12.74 (25 - 75)	50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)	0.818
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	173				0.679
f		137 (79%)	67 (78%)	70 (80%)
m		36 (21%)	19 (22%)	17 (20%)
occupation	173				0.923
day_training		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
full_time		21 (12%)	11 (13%)	10 (11%)
homemaker		18 (10%)	8 (9.3%)	10 (11%)
other		2 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
part_time		32 (18%)	16 (19%)	16 (18%)
retired		43 (25%)	21 (24%)	22 (25%)
self_employ		7 (4.0%)	4 (4.7%)	3 (3.4%)
student		2 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
t_and_e		2 (1.2%)	1 (1.2%)	1 (1.1%)
unemploy		42 (24%)	23 (27%)	19 (22%)
marital	173				0.966
cohabitation		1 (0.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.1%)
divore		19 (11%)	11 (13%)	8 (9.2%)
in_relationship		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
married		53 (31%)	25 (29%)	28 (32%)
none		83 (48%)	41 (48%)	42 (48%)
seperation		3 (1.7%)	2 (2.3%)	1 (1.1%)
widow		10 (5.8%)	5 (5.8%)	5 (5.7%)
edu	173				0.347
bachelor		39 (23%)	15 (17%)	24 (28%)
diploma		32 (18%)	21 (24%)	11 (13%)
hd_ad		5 (2.9%)	4 (4.7%)	1 (1.1%)
postgraduate		15 (8.7%)	8 (9.3%)	7 (8.0%)
primary		12 (6.9%)	5 (5.8%)	7 (8.0%)
secondary_1_3		19 (11%)	10 (12%)	9 (10%)
secondary_4_5		42 (24%)	19 (22%)	23 (26%)
secondary_6_7		9 (5.2%)	4 (4.7%)	5 (5.7%)
fam_income	173				0.748
10001_12000		6 (3.5%)	2 (2.3%)	4 (4.6%)
12001_14000		10 (5.8%)	4 (4.7%)	6 (6.9%)
14001_16000		8 (4.6%)	3 (3.5%)	5 (5.7%)
16001_18000		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
18001_20000		8 (4.6%)	6 (7.0%)	2 (2.3%)
20001_above		32 (18%)	19 (22%)	13 (15%)
2001_4000		24 (14%)	13 (15%)	11 (13%)
4001_6000		19 (11%)	7 (8.1%)	12 (14%)
6001_8000		16 (9.2%)	9 (10%)	7 (8.0%)
8001_10000		14 (8.1%)	7 (8.1%)	7 (8.0%)
below_2000		32 (18%)	14 (16%)	18 (21%)
medication	173	154 (89%)	76 (88%)	78 (90%)	0.787
onset_duration	170	15.50 ± 10.42 (0 - 56)	15.98 ± 11.40 (0 - 56)	15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35)	0.544
Unknown		3	0	3
onset_age	168	35.55 ± 13.49 (10 - 65)	34.98 ± 12.19 (10 - 61)	36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65)	0.583
Unknown		5	2	3
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1731	control, N = 861	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	173	3.10 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)	0.699
recovery_stage_b	173	17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)	17.92 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)	17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)	0.653
ras_confidence	173	29.76 ± 5.27 (14 - 45)	29.37 ± 5.16 (14 - 40)	30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)	0.341
ras_willingness	173	11.78 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.71 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	0.647
ras_goal	173	17.42 ± 3.13 (7 - 25)	17.16 ± 3.03 (7 - 24)	17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)	0.291
ras_reliance	173	13.31 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)	13.08 ± 2.82 (5 - 18)	13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)	0.299
ras_domination	173	9.77 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.50 (3 - 15)	9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)	0.322
symptom	173	29.94 ± 9.10 (14 - 56)	30.08 ± 9.46 (14 - 55)	29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)	0.842
slof_work	173	22.33 ± 4.77 (10 - 30)	22.55 ± 4.39 (12 - 30)	22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)	0.554
slof_relationship	173	25.31 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)	24.98 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)	25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)	0.460
satisfaction	173	20.38 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)	19.56 ± 6.97 (5 - 33)	21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	0.134
mhc_emotional	173	10.76 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.51 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)	11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	0.383
mhc_social	173	14.97 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)	14.78 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)	15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)	0.653
mhc_psychological	173	21.67 ± 6.43 (6 - 36)	21.45 ± 6.27 (7 - 36)	21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)	0.660
resilisnce	173	16.35 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)	15.78 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)	16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)	0.113
social_provision	173	13.51 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)	13.12 ± 2.68 (5 - 20)	13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)	0.073
els_value_living	173	16.94 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.66 ± 3.05 (6 - 22)	17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.261
els_life_fulfill	173	12.70 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)	12.23 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)	13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)	0.071
els	173	29.64 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)	28.90 ± 5.76 (11 - 39)	30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)	0.107
social_connect	173	26.59 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)	27.08 ± 8.95 (8 - 48)	26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)	0.490
shs_agency	173	14.29 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)	13.77 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)	14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)	0.183
shs_pathway	173	15.95 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)	15.41 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)	16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)	0.091
shs	173	30.24 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.58 (6 - 45)	31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)	0.119
esteem	173	12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)	12.63 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)	12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)	0.976
mlq_search	173	14.87 ± 3.59 (3 - 21)	14.50 ± 3.61 (4 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)	0.182
mlq_presence	173	13.34 ± 4.43 (3 - 21)	13.20 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)	13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)	0.686
mlq	173	28.20 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)	27.70 ± 6.84 (7 - 40)	28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)	0.357
empower	173	19.13 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)	18.71 ± 4.17 (9 - 30)	19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)	0.202
ismi_resistance	173	14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.41 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)	14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)	0.991
ismi_discrimation	173	11.65 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)	11.83 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)	11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	0.462
sss_affective	173	10.22 ± 3.64 (3 - 18)	10.14 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)	10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)	0.774
sss_behavior	173	9.90 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	9.99 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.764
sss_cognitive	173	8.43 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	8.36 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)	8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	0.798
sss	173	28.55 ± 10.33 (9 - 54)	28.49 ± 10.18 (9 - 54)	28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)	0.933
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.14	0.127	2.89, 3.39
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.071	0.179	-0.422, 0.281	0.694
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.175	0.193	-0.204, 0.554	0.367
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.328	0.279	-0.219, 0.876	0.242
	Pseudo R square	0.021
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.311	17.3, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.194	0.438	-1.05, 0.665	0.658
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.215	0.419	-1.04, 0.605	0.608
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.825	0.605	-0.361, 2.01	0.176
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.4	0.565	28.3, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.766	0.797	-0.796, 2.33	0.338
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.28	0.579	0.144, 2.41	0.030
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.532	0.839	-1.11, 2.18	0.528
	Pseudo R square	0.026
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.217	11.3, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.141	0.305	-0.457, 0.740	0.644
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.127	0.247	-0.612, 0.358	0.608
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.470	0.358	-0.232, 1.17	0.193
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.341	16.5, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.504	0.481	-0.439, 1.45	0.296
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.291	0.410	-0.512, 1.09	0.479
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.404	0.593	-0.758, 1.57	0.497
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.313	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.459	0.442	-0.408, 1.33	0.301
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.412	0.354	-0.282, 1.11	0.248
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.336	0.513	-0.669, 1.34	0.514
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.255	9.45, 10.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.367	0.360	-1.07, 0.339	0.309
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.108	0.326	-0.748, 0.532	0.741
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.20	0.472	0.274, 2.13	0.013
	Pseudo R square	0.022
symptom	(Intercept)	30.1	0.979	28.2, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.277	1.381	-2.98, 2.43	0.841
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.27	0.863	-2.96, 0.422	0.145
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.351	1.251	-2.80, 2.10	0.780
	Pseudo R square	0.006
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.514	21.5, 23.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.432	0.725	-1.85, 0.988	0.552
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.103	0.538	-1.16, 0.951	0.848
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.424	0.779	-1.10, 1.95	0.588
	Pseudo R square	0.002
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.0	0.630	23.7, 26.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.667	0.889	-1.07, 2.41	0.454
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.456	0.678	-1.79, 0.872	0.502
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.793	0.982	-1.13, 2.72	0.422
	Pseudo R square	0.007
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.6	0.768	18.1, 21.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.63	1.083	-0.497, 3.75	0.135
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.831	0.760	-0.658, 2.32	0.277
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.670	1.101	-1.49, 2.83	0.544
	Pseudo R square	0.022
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.5	0.402	9.72, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.500	0.567	-0.612, 1.61	0.379
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.490	0.392	-0.278, 1.26	0.215
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.370	0.568	-1.48, 0.743	0.516
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.8	0.620	13.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.382	0.875	-1.33, 2.10	0.663
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.857	0.680	-0.475, 2.19	0.211
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.168	0.985	-2.10, 1.76	0.865
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.5	0.710	20.1, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.432	1.001	-1.53, 2.39	0.667
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.15	0.767	-0.350, 2.66	0.136
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.384	1.111	-2.56, 1.79	0.730
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	15.8	0.493	14.8, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.13	0.695	-0.232, 2.49	0.106
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.794	0.564	-0.310, 1.90	0.162
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.986	0.816	-0.613, 2.59	0.230
	Pseudo R square	0.041
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.306	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.780	0.432	-0.067, 1.63	0.072
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.454	0.354	-1.15, 0.240	0.203
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.747	0.513	-0.257, 1.75	0.148
	Pseudo R square	0.035
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.345	16.0, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.544	0.486	-0.409, 1.50	0.265
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.304	0.371	-0.424, 1.03	0.416
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.215	0.538	-0.839, 1.27	0.690
	Pseudo R square	0.012
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.356	11.5, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.928	0.501	-0.054, 1.91	0.066
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.531	0.341	-0.138, 1.20	0.123
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.096	0.495	-1.07, 0.873	0.846
	Pseudo R square	0.022
els	(Intercept)	28.9	0.645	27.6, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.47	0.910	-0.310, 3.26	0.107
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.861	0.591	-0.297, 2.02	0.149
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.012	0.856	-1.67, 1.69	0.989
	Pseudo R square	0.019
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.1	1.008	25.1, 29.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.978	1.421	-3.76, 1.81	0.492
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.207	0.960	-2.09, 1.67	0.830
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.45	1.391	-5.18, 0.274	0.081
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.547	12.7, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.04	0.771	-0.473, 2.55	0.180
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.400	0.538	-0.654, 1.46	0.459
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.370	0.780	-1.16, 1.90	0.636
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.440	14.5, 16.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	0.620	-0.140, 2.29	0.084
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.725	0.443	-0.143, 1.59	0.105
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.515	0.641	-1.77, 0.743	0.425
	Pseudo R square	0.016
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.942	27.3, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.11	1.328	-0.490, 4.72	0.113
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.12	0.913	-0.669, 2.91	0.223
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.158	1.323	-2.75, 2.43	0.905
	Pseudo R square	0.016
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.161	12.3, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.007	0.227	-0.452, 0.437	0.975
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.072	0.257	-0.575, 0.432	0.781
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.097	0.371	-0.629, 0.824	0.793
	Pseudo R square	0.000
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.383	13.7, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.730	0.540	-0.328, 1.79	0.178
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.754	0.454	-0.136, 1.64	0.100
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.930	0.657	-2.22, 0.357	0.160
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.473	12.3, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.274	0.667	-1.03, 1.58	0.682
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.663	0.503	-0.322, 1.65	0.191
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.244	0.728	-1.67, 1.18	0.738
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mlq	(Intercept)	27.7	0.769	26.2, 29.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	1.085	-1.12, 3.13	0.356
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.40	0.836	-0.235, 3.04	0.097
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.14	1.211	-3.51, 1.23	0.349
	Pseudo R square	0.006
empower	(Intercept)	18.7	0.464	17.8, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.842	0.654	-0.440, 2.12	0.199
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.903	0.466	-0.009, 1.82	0.056
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.11	0.675	-2.44, 0.211	0.103
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.274	13.9, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.005	0.386	-0.761, 0.752	0.990
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.052	0.347	-0.628, 0.732	0.881
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.627	0.502	-0.357, 1.61	0.215
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.337	11.2, 12.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.343	0.475	-1.27, 0.588	0.471
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.076	0.435	-0.928, 0.775	0.861
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.511	0.629	-1.74, 0.722	0.418
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.1	0.392	9.37, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.159	0.553	-0.925, 1.24	0.774
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.095	0.391	-0.862, 0.672	0.809
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.04	0.567	-2.16, 0.067	0.069
	Pseudo R square	0.011
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.99	0.403	9.20, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.172	0.569	-1.29, 0.942	0.762
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.296	0.398	-1.08, 0.484	0.459
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.366	0.577	-1.50, 0.765	0.528
	Pseudo R square	0.005
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.36	0.395	7.59, 9.13
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.145	0.557	-0.946, 1.24	0.794
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.029	0.432	-0.877, 0.818	0.946
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.940	0.626	-2.17, 0.287	0.137
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss	(Intercept)	28.5	1.109	26.3, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.132	1.563	-2.93, 3.20	0.933
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.471	1.020	-2.47, 1.53	0.645
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.15	1.479	-5.04, 0.753	0.150
	Pseudo R square	0.007
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(245) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(245) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.55], t(245) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(245) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.31, 18.53], t(245) = 57.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.66], t(245) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.61], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.01], t(245) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.37 (95% CI [28.26, 30.48], t(245) = 51.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.33], t(245) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.14, 2.41], t(245) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.18], t(245) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.71 (95% CI [11.28, 12.13], t(245) = 54.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.74], t(245) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.36], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.17], t(245) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.58])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.49, 17.83], t(245) = 50.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.45], t(245) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.09], t(245) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.57], t(245) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.50])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.70], t(245) = 41.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.33], t(245) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.11], t(245) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.34], t(245) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.45, 10.45], t(245) = 38.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.34], t(245) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.53], t(245) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.27, 2.13], t(245) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.12, 0.90])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.08 (95% CI [28.16, 32.00], t(245) = 30.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 2.43], t(245) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.42], t(245) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 2.10], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.23])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.55 (95% CI [21.54, 23.55], t(245) = 43.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.99], t(245) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.95], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.95], t(245) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.98 (95% CI [23.74, 26.21], t(245) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.41], t(245) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.87], t(245) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.72], t(245) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.56 (95% CI [18.05, 21.06], t(245) = 25.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.75], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.32], t(245) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.83], t(245) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.72, 11.30], t(245) = 26.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.61], t(245) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.26], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.74], t(245) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.56, 15.99], t(245) = 23.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.10], t(245) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.19], t(245) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.76], t(245) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.31])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.45 (95% CI [20.06, 22.84], t(245) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.39], t(245) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.66], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.79], t(245) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.78 (95% CI [14.81, 16.74], t(245) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.49], t(245) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(245) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.59], t(245) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.56])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.52, 13.72], t(245) = 42.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.63], t(245) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.24], t(245) = -1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.75], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.61])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.99, 17.34], t(245) = 48.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.50], t(245) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.03], t(245) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.27], t(245) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.54, 12.93], t(245) = 34.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.91], t(245) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.20], t(245) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.87], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.845; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.90 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(245) = 44.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.26], t(245) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.69], t(245) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.08 (95% CI [25.11, 29.06], t(245) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.81], t(245) = -0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.67], t(245) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-5.18, 0.27], t(245) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.77 (95% CI [12.70, 14.84], t(245) = 25.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.55], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(245) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.90], t(245) = 0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.54, 16.27], t(245) = 35.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.29], t(245) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.59], t(245) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.74], t(245) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.33, 31.02], t(245) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 4.72], t(245) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.91], t(245) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.75, 2.43], t(245) = -0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.50e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.63 (95% CI [12.31, 12.94], t(245) = 78.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44], t(245) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.43], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.82], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.50 (95% CI [13.75, 15.25], t(245) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.79], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.64], t(245) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.36], t(245) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.27, 14.12], t(245) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.58], t(245) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(245) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.18], t(245) = -0.34, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.19, 29.21], t(245) = 36.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.13], t(245) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.04], t(245) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.51, 1.23], t(245) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.17])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.71 (95% CI [17.80, 19.62], t(245) = 40.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.12], t(245) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 1.82], t(245) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.24e-03, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.21], t(245) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.05])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.94], t(245) = 52.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.75], t(245) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -1.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.73], t(245) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.61], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.63])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [11.17, 12.49], t(245) = 35.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.59], t(245) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.78], t(245) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.72], t(245) = -0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.23])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.14 (95% CI [9.37, 10.91], t(245) = 25.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.24], t(245) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.67], t(245) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.07], t(245) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.02])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(245) = 24.77, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.94], t(245) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.48], t(245) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.77], t(245) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.36 (95% CI [7.59, 9.13], t(245) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.24], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(245) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.29], t(245) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.08])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.49 (95% CI [26.32, 30.66], t(245) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.93, 3.20], t(245) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.53], t(245) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.15, 95% CI [-5.04, 0.75], t(245) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	795.240	805.816	-394.620	789.240
recovery_stage_a	random	6	794.247	815.400	-391.124	782.247	6.993	3	0.072
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,225.218	1,235.794	-609.609	1,219.218
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,228.979	1,250.132	-608.489	1,216.979	2.239	3	0.524
ras_confidence	null	3	1,500.788	1,511.364	-747.394	1,494.788
ras_confidence	random	6	1,492.282	1,513.435	-740.141	1,480.282	14.506	3	0.002
ras_willingness	null	3	1,022.771	1,033.347	-508.385	1,016.771
ras_willingness	random	6	1,025.969	1,047.122	-506.985	1,013.969	2.801	3	0.423
ras_goal	null	3	1,259.720	1,270.296	-626.860	1,253.720
ras_goal	random	6	1,260.871	1,282.024	-624.436	1,248.871	4.849	3	0.183
ras_reliance	null	3	1,210.978	1,221.555	-602.489	1,204.978
ras_reliance	random	6	1,210.090	1,231.243	-599.045	1,198.090	6.888	3	0.076
ras_domination	null	3	1,127.813	1,138.390	-560.907	1,121.813
ras_domination	random	6	1,123.864	1,145.016	-555.932	1,111.864	9.950	3	0.019
symptom	null	3	1,745.639	1,756.215	-869.820	1,739.639
symptom	random	6	1,746.306	1,767.459	-867.153	1,734.306	5.333	3	0.149
slof_work	null	3	1,442.065	1,452.641	-718.032	1,436.065
slof_work	random	6	1,447.474	1,468.626	-717.737	1,435.474	0.591	3	0.898
slof_relationship	null	3	1,549.591	1,560.167	-771.795	1,543.591
slof_relationship	random	6	1,553.874	1,575.027	-770.937	1,541.874	1.717	3	0.633
satisfaction	null	3	1,642.805	1,653.381	-818.402	1,636.805
satisfaction	random	6	1,641.252	1,662.405	-814.626	1,629.252	7.553	3	0.056
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,310.527	1,321.103	-652.264	1,304.527
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,314.318	1,335.471	-651.159	1,302.318	2.209	3	0.530
mhc_social	null	3	1,545.205	1,555.782	-769.603	1,539.205
mhc_social	random	6	1,548.516	1,569.668	-768.258	1,536.516	2.690	3	0.442
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,611.341	1,621.918	-802.671	1,605.341
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,614.044	1,635.196	-801.022	1,602.044	3.298	3	0.348
resilisnce	null	3	1,447.585	1,458.162	-720.793	1,441.585
resilisnce	random	6	1,438.721	1,459.874	-713.360	1,426.721	14.865	3	0.002
social_provision	null	3	1,203.462	1,214.038	-598.731	1,197.462
social_provision	random	6	1,201.716	1,222.868	-594.858	1,189.716	7.746	3	0.052
els_value_living	null	3	1,249.491	1,260.068	-621.746	1,243.491
els_value_living	random	6	1,251.456	1,272.609	-619.728	1,239.456	4.035	3	0.258
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,251.530	1,262.106	-622.765	1,245.530
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,250.258	1,271.411	-619.129	1,238.258	7.272	3	0.064
els	null	3	1,543.185	1,553.761	-768.592	1,537.185
els	random	6	1,542.369	1,563.522	-765.185	1,530.369	6.816	3	0.078
social_connect	null	3	1,774.229	1,784.805	-884.114	1,768.229
social_connect	random	6	1,772.029	1,793.182	-880.015	1,760.029	8.200	3	0.042
shs_agency	null	3	1,468.432	1,479.008	-731.216	1,462.432
shs_agency	random	6	1,469.770	1,490.923	-728.885	1,457.770	4.661	3	0.198
shs_pathway	null	3	1,363.217	1,373.794	-678.609	1,357.217
shs_pathway	random	6	1,363.860	1,385.013	-675.930	1,351.860	5.358	3	0.147
shs	null	3	1,739.754	1,750.330	-866.877	1,733.754
shs	random	6	1,740.686	1,761.839	-864.343	1,728.686	5.068	3	0.167
esteem	null	3	910.195	920.772	-452.098	904.195
esteem	random	6	916.097	937.249	-452.048	904.097	0.099	3	0.992
mlq_search	null	3	1,314.661	1,325.237	-654.330	1,308.661
mlq_search	random	6	1,316.825	1,337.978	-652.412	1,304.825	3.836	3	0.280
mlq_presence	null	3	1,404.688	1,415.264	-699.344	1,398.688
mlq_presence	random	6	1,408.191	1,429.344	-698.096	1,396.191	2.497	3	0.476
mlq	null	3	1,652.722	1,663.299	-823.361	1,646.722
mlq	random	6	1,655.329	1,676.482	-821.665	1,643.329	3.393	3	0.335
empower	null	3	1,389.075	1,399.652	-691.538	1,383.075
empower	random	6	1,390.323	1,411.476	-689.162	1,378.323	4.752	3	0.191
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,155.129	1,165.705	-574.564	1,149.129
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,157.435	1,178.588	-572.718	1,145.435	3.694	3	0.297
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,260.611	1,271.187	-627.305	1,254.611
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,263.881	1,285.034	-625.940	1,251.881	2.730	3	0.435
sss_affective	null	3	1,307.094	1,317.670	-650.547	1,301.094
sss_affective	random	6	1,305.328	1,326.481	-646.664	1,293.328	7.766	3	0.051
sss_behavior	null	3	1,314.885	1,325.461	-654.443	1,308.885
sss_behavior	random	6	1,317.585	1,338.738	-652.792	1,305.585	3.300	3	0.348
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,320.308	1,330.884	-657.154	1,314.308
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,321.674	1,342.827	-654.837	1,309.674	4.633	3	0.201
sss	null	3	1,815.201	1,825.777	-904.601	1,809.201
sss	random	6	1,814.946	1,836.098	-901.473	1,802.946	6.255	3	0.100

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	86	3.14 ± 1.18		87	3.07 ± 1.18		0.694	0.073
recovery_stage_a	2nd	41	3.31 ± 1.15	-0.182	37	3.57 ± 1.15	-0.522	0.324	-0.267
recovery_stage_b	1st	86	17.92 ± 2.88		87	17.72 ± 2.88		0.658	0.096
recovery_stage_b	2nd	41	17.70 ± 2.70	0.106	37	18.33 ± 2.68	-0.300	0.301	-0.310
ras_confidence	1st	86	29.37 ± 5.24		87	30.14 ± 5.24		0.338	-0.282
ras_confidence	2nd	41	30.65 ± 4.46	-0.470	37	31.95 ± 4.37	-0.666	0.196	-0.477
ras_willingness	1st	86	11.71 ± 2.01		87	11.85 ± 2.01		0.644	-0.120
ras_willingness	2nd	41	11.58 ± 1.77	0.108	37	12.19 ± 1.75	-0.292	0.126	-0.521
ras_goal	1st	86	17.16 ± 3.16		87	17.67 ± 3.16		0.296	-0.258
ras_goal	2nd	41	17.45 ± 2.84	-0.149	37	18.36 ± 2.80	-0.356	0.157	-0.465
ras_reliance	1st	86	13.08 ± 2.91		87	13.54 ± 2.91		0.301	-0.274
ras_reliance	2nd	41	13.49 ± 2.55	-0.246	37	14.29 ± 2.51	-0.446	0.168	-0.474
ras_domination	1st	86	9.95 ± 2.37		87	9.59 ± 2.37		0.309	0.234
ras_domination	2nd	41	9.85 ± 2.17	0.069	37	10.68 ± 2.15	-0.695	0.091	-0.530
symptom	1st	86	30.08 ± 9.08		87	29.80 ± 9.08		0.841	0.069
symptom	2nd	41	28.81 ± 7.39	0.316	37	28.18 ± 7.20	0.404	0.705	0.157
slof_work	1st	86	22.55 ± 4.76		87	22.11 ± 4.76		0.552	0.171
slof_work	2nd	41	22.44 ± 4.08	0.041	37	22.44 ± 4.01	-0.127	0.993	0.003
slof_relationship	1st	86	24.98 ± 5.84		87	25.64 ± 5.84		0.454	-0.209
slof_relationship	2nd	41	24.52 ± 5.05	0.143	37	25.98 ± 4.96	-0.105	0.199	-0.457
satisfaction	1st	86	19.56 ± 7.12		87	21.18 ± 7.12		0.135	-0.457
satisfaction	2nd	41	20.39 ± 5.99	-0.233	37	22.68 ± 5.87	-0.422	0.089	-0.645
mhc_emotional	1st	86	10.51 ± 3.73		87	11.01 ± 3.73		0.379	-0.273
mhc_emotional	2nd	41	11.00 ± 3.12	-0.267	37	11.13 ± 3.06	-0.065	0.853	-0.071
mhc_social	1st	86	14.78 ± 5.75		87	15.16 ± 5.75		0.663	-0.119
mhc_social	2nd	41	15.64 ± 5.00	-0.267	37	15.85 ± 4.92	-0.215	0.849	-0.067
mhc_psychological	1st	86	21.45 ± 6.58		87	21.89 ± 6.58		0.667	-0.119
mhc_psychological	2nd	41	22.61 ± 5.69	-0.319	37	22.65 ± 5.60	-0.213	0.970	-0.013
resilisnce	1st	86	15.78 ± 4.57		87	16.91 ± 4.57		0.106	-0.422
resilisnce	2nd	41	16.57 ± 4.03	-0.297	37	18.69 ± 3.97	-0.666	0.020	-0.791
social_provision	1st	86	13.12 ± 2.84		87	13.90 ± 2.84		0.072	-0.464
social_provision	2nd	41	12.66 ± 2.51	0.270	37	14.19 ± 2.48	-0.174	0.007	-0.908
els_value_living	1st	86	16.66 ± 3.20		87	17.21 ± 3.20		0.265	-0.311
els_value_living	2nd	41	16.97 ± 2.76	-0.173	37	17.73 ± 2.72	-0.296	0.223	-0.434
els_life_fulfill	1st	86	12.23 ± 3.30		87	13.16 ± 3.30		0.066	-0.582
els_life_fulfill	2nd	41	12.76 ± 2.75	-0.333	37	13.60 ± 2.69	-0.273	0.178	-0.522
els	1st	86	28.90 ± 5.98		87	30.37 ± 5.98		0.107	-0.535
els	2nd	41	29.76 ± 4.92	-0.313	37	31.24 ± 4.80	-0.317	0.179	-0.540
social_connect	1st	86	27.08 ± 9.34		87	26.10 ± 9.34		0.492	0.218
social_connect	2nd	41	26.87 ± 7.77	0.046	37	23.44 ± 7.60	0.593	0.050	0.765
shs_agency	1st	86	13.77 ± 5.07		87	14.80 ± 5.07		0.180	-0.412
shs_agency	2nd	41	14.17 ± 4.26	-0.159	37	15.57 ± 4.17	-0.306	0.142	-0.559
shs_pathway	1st	86	15.41 ± 4.08		87	16.48 ± 4.08		0.084	-0.518
shs_pathway	2nd	41	16.13 ± 3.45	-0.349	37	16.69 ± 3.38	-0.101	0.469	-0.270
shs	1st	86	29.17 ± 8.74		87	31.29 ± 8.74		0.113	-0.495
shs	2nd	41	30.29 ± 7.30	-0.262	37	32.25 ± 7.14	-0.225	0.234	-0.458
esteem	1st	86	12.63 ± 1.49		87	12.62 ± 1.49		0.975	0.006
esteem	2nd	41	12.56 ± 1.48	0.055	37	12.65 ± 1.48	-0.020	0.788	-0.069
mlq_search	1st	86	14.50 ± 3.55		87	15.23 ± 3.55		0.178	-0.338
mlq_search	2nd	41	15.25 ± 3.17	-0.349	37	15.05 ± 3.13	0.082	0.779	0.093
mlq_presence	1st	86	13.20 ± 4.39		87	13.47 ± 4.39		0.682	-0.116
mlq_presence	2nd	41	13.86 ± 3.77	-0.280	37	13.89 ± 3.71	-0.177	0.972	-0.012
mlq	1st	86	27.70 ± 7.13		87	28.70 ± 7.13		0.356	-0.254
mlq	2nd	41	29.10 ± 6.18	-0.356	37	28.96 ± 6.08	-0.067	0.921	0.035
empower	1st	86	18.71 ± 4.30		87	19.55 ± 4.30		0.199	-0.386
empower	2nd	41	19.61 ± 3.64	-0.414	37	19.34 ± 3.56	0.096	0.741	0.124
ismi_resistance	1st	86	14.41 ± 2.54		87	14.40 ± 2.54		0.990	0.003
ismi_resistance	2nd	41	14.46 ± 2.32	-0.031	37	15.08 ± 2.30	-0.407	0.236	-0.373
ismi_discrimation	1st	86	11.83 ± 3.12		87	11.48 ± 3.12		0.471	0.164
ismi_discrimation	2nd	41	11.75 ± 2.88	0.037	37	10.90 ± 2.85	0.280	0.190	0.408
sss_affective	1st	86	10.14 ± 3.64		87	10.30 ± 3.64		0.774	-0.087
sss_affective	2nd	41	10.04 ± 3.07	0.052	37	9.16 ± 3.01	0.621	0.200	0.483
sss_behavior	1st	86	9.99 ± 3.74		87	9.82 ± 3.74		0.762	0.092
sss_behavior	2nd	41	9.69 ± 3.14	0.159	37	9.15 ± 3.08	0.355	0.446	0.289
sss_cognitive	1st	86	8.36 ± 3.66		87	8.51 ± 3.66		0.794	-0.071
sss_cognitive	2nd	41	8.33 ± 3.18	0.014	37	7.54 ± 3.13	0.475	0.268	0.389
sss	1st	86	28.49 ± 10.28		87	28.62 ± 10.28		0.933	-0.028
sss	2nd	41	28.02 ± 8.47	0.099	37	26.00 ± 8.27	0.550	0.289	0.423

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(231.88) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(239.48) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(216.27) = -0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.67)

2st

t(236.76) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st

t(194.07) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)

2st

t(244.84) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.27)

ras_willingness

1st

t(201.05) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.74)

2st

t(240.97) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.40)

ras_goal

1st

t(205.00) = 1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.45)

2st

t(239.17) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.17)

ras_reliance

1st

t(200.20) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)

2st

t(241.41) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st

t(210.71) = -1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.34)

2st

t(237.44) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.80)

symptom

1st

t(187.23) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.45)

2st

t(246.96) = -0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.63)

slof_work

1st

t(195.29) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.00)

2st

t(244.16) = -0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.80)

slof_relationship

1st

t(196.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.42)

2st

t(243.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.78 to 3.69)

satisfaction

1st

t(192.23) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.76)

2st

t(245.78) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.35 to 4.94)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(191.49) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.62)

2st

t(246.11) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.51)

mhc_social

1st

t(198.14) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.11)

2st

t(242.54) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.43)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(197.22) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.40)

2st

t(243.06) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(201.16) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.50)

2st

t(240.92) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.33 to 3.90)

social_provision

1st

t(201.86) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.63)

2st

t(240.57) = 2.70, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.64)

els_value_living

1st

t(196.98) = 1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.50)

2st

t(243.20) = 1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.98)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(190.80) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.92)

2st

t(246.39) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.05)

els

1st

t(188.73) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.27)

2st

t(246.94) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.65)

social_connect

1st

t(190.44) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.82)

2st

t(246.52) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.86 to -0.00)

shs_agency

1st

t(192.01) = 1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.56)

2st

t(245.88) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.29)

shs_pathway

1st

t(193.12) = 1.73, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.30)

2st

t(245.34) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.09)

shs

1st

t(191.22) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 4.73)

2st

t(246.23) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.18)

esteem

1st

t(238.67) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.44)

2st

t(242.36) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.75)

mlq_search

1st

t(203.92) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.79)

2st

t(239.62) = -0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.21)

mlq_presence

1st

t(196.18) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.59)

2st

t(243.66) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.70)

mlq

1st

t(197.58) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.14)

2st

t(242.85) = -0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.60)

empower

1st

t(192.99) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.13)

2st

t(245.41) = -0.33, p = 0.741, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.34)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(209.85) = -0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.76)

2st

t(237.63) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(211.68) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.59)

2st

t(237.25) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.42)

sss_affective

1st

t(192.65) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(245.58) = -1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.47)

sss_behavior

1st

t(192.15) = -0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.95)

2st

t(245.82) = -0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.85)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(198.09) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.24)

2st

t(242.57) = -1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.61)

sss

1st

t(188.94) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.95 to 3.22)

2st

t(246.91) = -1.06, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-5.75 to 1.72)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(121.89) = 2.49, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.10 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.57) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.48)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(90.15) = 2.97, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(94.91) = 1.32, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.86)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(97.75) = 1.62, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(94.31) = 2.01, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.49)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(102.06) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(85.74) = -1.78, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.42 to 0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(90.96) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(92.07) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(88.94) = 1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.09)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(88.46) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(92.89) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.11)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(92.26) = 0.95, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.37)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(94.99) = 3.01, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 2.96)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(95.48) = 0.79, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.03)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(92.10) = 1.33, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.29)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(88.01) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.15)

els

1st vs 2st

t(86.68) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.11)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(87.78) = -2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.65)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(88.80) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.90)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(89.52) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.13)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(88.29) = 1.00, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(131.00) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.56)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(96.96) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.77)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(91.56) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.47)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(92.51) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.01)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(89.44) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.76)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(101.39) = 1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(102.82) = -1.29, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.32)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(89.22) = -2.77, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-1.96 to -0.32)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(88.89) = -1.58, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.17)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(92.86) = -2.13, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.87 to -0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(86.82) = -2.44, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.75 to -0.48)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(116.78) = 0.90, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.56)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(103.32) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.62)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(88.76) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.43)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(93.00) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.37)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(95.52) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.11)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(92.47) = 1.16, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(99.34) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.54)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(84.80) = -1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.45)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(89.48) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.97)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(90.47) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(87.67) = 1.09, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.34)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(87.24) = 1.25, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(91.20) = 1.26, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(90.64) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(93.07) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.92)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(93.51) = -1.28, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.25)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(90.50) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.04)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(86.84) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(85.65) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(86.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.70)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(87.55) = 0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.47)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(88.20) = 1.63, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(87.09) = 1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.94)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(124.76) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(94.82) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.66)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(90.01) = 1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(90.86) = 1.67, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.07)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(88.12) = 1.94, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(98.75) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.74)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(100.01) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.79)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(87.92) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.69)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(87.63) = -0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(91.17) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.83)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(85.77) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.56)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance